Dev Anand Teelucksingh: Okay, eight minutes past the hour. Thank you very much and a very good day and evening to everyone. My name is Dev Anand Teelucksingh, I’m Chair of the Work Team D, and I just want to go through the roll call and welcome several new attendees to this Work Team. So, I have myself, Dev Anand Teelucksingh, Dave Kissoondoyal, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Chris Grundemann, and we have Jean-Jacques Subrenat.
Welcome and thanks for joining this call. And we also have Carlos Aguirre, I believe, and Antonio Medina Gomez, and Rudi Vansnick is now coming in, should be joining the call shortly. And we have apologies from Olivier who is travelling at the moment. From ICANN staff we have Seth Greene and Gisella Gruber-White. Have I missed anyone?
So let’s now proceed to the agenda items for the 17th of February – that would be review of action items from the 3rd February 2011 meeting. Seth to contact Beau for feedback on the consumer document. Seth, do you want to just formally for the record the time when you talked to Beau?
Seth Greene: Pardon me, if you could repeat that, Dev?
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: Sure. You said you had contacted Beau regarding any comments on the consumer outreach document. I’m seeing here that it was completed and Beau had no further comments.
Seth Greene: Yes, to put it differently I have not heard back from Beau.
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: Okay, thank you Seth. Heidi to add Work Team D consumer document to the consumer comment for comments once the Work Team considers it ready. So we have to make a formal decision – does the Work Team consider it ready to go to consumer comment for comments?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Sorry Dev, I have not made three changes to the glossary of that document and those changes need to be made before it is ready to go. The definition in the glossary on that document is inadequate for GNSO and it needs to be hyperlinked to the appropriate webpage where GNSO describes itself with its two houses and its diagram because that is the most clear and concise way of describing how the GNSO is and what the beast is like that’s been created in the bicameral house model.
Coming from that, there is an addition required in the glossary – we need to have the contracted parties house and the non-contracted parties house added to the glossary and defined. That can also come from the GNSO website. And we need to ensure that there is the addition of the non-commercial stakeholders group, which is clearly the partisan non-contracted house that most consumer organizations and consumers will need to know about because it is the constituencies within that house and that part of the house that they will be either joining or interacting with.
So they’re very essential edits I did say I would get back to Heidi with what I thought needed to go in and real life has over taken me between now and then so, I have not done that. Seth, do you want me to work with Heidi on that or have you catched enough direction from me and between the two of us we can change those documents?
Seth Greene: Thanks, Cheryl. I think that is fine – I can deal with Heidi on it. We’ve actually, she mentioned some, if not even perhaps all of that in the last meeting. We’ve updated the glossary. I actually worked with Rib Hogarth – gave us a new definition of the GNSO – it includes an explanation within that definition granted of the both houses – the contracted party house; non-contracted party house – there’s also a reference in the definition to the non-commercial stakeholders group.
So people might want to take a look at the wiki page where that’s all been updated. i have not, and will do so after this meeting, make those different terms separate definitions within the glossary as you’ve just mentioned. That’s a great idea, I’ll make sure that that’s done. And yeah, if I need Heidi I’ll get her help absolutely.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: If they’re not separated it just gets too confusing to somebody who is basically trying to learn how to spell ICANN going into the quagmire of what GNSO is and how it works, unless you keep it in brief, small bite sized pieces. And please, add the hyperlinks to the actual diagram pages.
Seth Greene: You say to the actual diagram pages, Cheryl?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: There is a page, get Rob to get it to you, there is a page which puts in a simple almost flowchart diagram on what is the GNSO. And boy is that one essential to help you understand.
Seth Greene: Thanks a lot, Cheryl, will do.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay, now I’m happy, once that’s done.
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: Very well, we’ll keep that as an action item for Seth to incorporate some of the pages, and thank you, Cheryl, for summarizing that too. And then we’ll look at the third draft and then hopefully that could then go to the consumer comment for comments.
Okay, Dev to consider incorporating into the main PAD – policy advice development – flowchart the additional points at which extensions can be requested. And we are extending an extension that is requesting a second extension with all information and reasons specified. Well I have to say I have not done this because I have not actually made any changes to the PAD flowchart at this time. I’ll just have to plead “life” in this regard because there was just many other things happening, but I think also I need some clarification of how best to do it.
For example, if you weren’t at the last meeting we discussed a method of simply instead of being not a 15-day extension, we could make a request for we just need like say a four day extension, a five day extension or the 15-day extension. The thing is how do I incorporate that into the main PAD flowchart which has a certain timeline whether the public comment is 30 days or a public comment is 45 days.
Since we went with the assumption that it would only be a 15-day extension requested. And I honestly don’t quite know how to incorporate that unspecified amount of time. Unless I introduce something like say a variable “x” days and then the timeline, the way the times are specified on the right hand side of the flowchart where we then use it like “x” +…Do you have an idea what I’m referring to – and I see Cheryl is typing on this I think. I think then Cheryl you want to make a comment?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Rather than continue to type perhaps I’ll just, reacting to that. I hear your problem, I understand, but I was, when we were talking about this at the last meeting I didn’t think we were going to be too narrow and explicit. An extension of an extension should probably be to fixed and predictable lengths of time. I would think being the global nature that it is, any block of an extension would probably be in a 14- or 15-day and not much less point of time.
So the extension from a 30- to a 45-day period is something we are now all familiar with in ICANN. We also see calls for public comment going out for things like 60 days as we’ve got one at the moment out for 60 days. So we tend to do multiples of months or half months. So perhaps we could stick with the “x’ where “x” equals a month or part thereof; or a calendar month or part thereof.
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: Okay, so I see what you’re saying Cheryl. I think what you’re saying is that the public comment is, I don’t know, call it variable “y” and “x” is in above these which we may want to extend the comment period when we make that request. Am I understanding you correctly as to how to implement it? And then update the timeline on the right hand side – Okay, I have a confirmation there. Very well I will try to make an attempt at doing this and hope it does not make the chart confusing. So I will make the attempt to actually do that before the next meeting.
Also on the agenda items – Dev to add the “before policy is available for comment” flowchart and I can’t, ah yes, this is regarding “before the policy is available for comment” and I will also update that flowchart. I started but it’s not in any proper presentable form. I will try to really attempt to get that back to the Work Team again, well before the next Work Team D meeting, preferable sometime next week; Monday or Tuesday.
Now there’s something I want to talk about regarding this “before the policy is available for public comment flowchart”, but perhaps I’ll leave that for later on in the agenda. So that was the action items for the 3rd of February 2011. Now, items for discussion, our next agenda item, number three – the revision of the PAD flowchart. Okay, well we just talked about how to approach the main PAD flowchart. And “before the policy is available for comment” flowchart and I hope everybody is able to click onto this.
Now at the last call there was a discussion that we cannot present this concept of a policy publish schedule so directly because we would be overstating, we’d be stepping out of our bounds because we really should be focusing on what At-Large improvements and not try to make suggestions that affect other supporting organizations. And it was felt that this concept of the policy publish schedule while it may be a good concept it is over-reaching too much into the supporting organizations operation and we should not really go so far as to state it so explicitly.
I believe I’ve captured what was said last week and it ended rather abruptly. Does anybody have any comments on that? Let me get a copy of the link here to post in the chat. Hello yes?
Seth Greene: I’m sorry. I just suddenly couldn’t hear anyone. I thought the audio went out. I apologize.
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: Very well. So does everybody agree with that? Does everybody agree with that we can’t really mention the policy publish schedule as it is presented right now? Okay, I see agreement from Rudi and Cheryl on that matter. Okay, very well. So we will then withdraw that… “although the concept is good we need to condense it in our area of concern”. Very well.
I will then work on modifying the schedule and perhaps what I will say is we focus more on the committee within At-Large that will be looking at policy issues and perhaps state what was discussed before – how representatives from all the regions, a person the ALAC rapporteur, possibly a person from the ALAC as well, no problem Cheryl.
And I was also thinking perhaps also the liaisons from two of the previous SOs could also be on that committee. You know, the GNSO liaison, the ccNSO liaison and so forth because by having those liaisons in those various supporting organizations they can also give input, or a heads up as to what policy is coming out of that supporting organization or advisory committee. Yes, okay I see Cheryl is agreeing with that. And Jean-Jacques Subrenat, you wish to – yes, please go ahead.
Jean-Jacques Subrenat: Yes, thank you. So this is my first call so excuse me if I put questions which you’ve already dealt with. I’ve gone through the documents and all that but I may miss things. A very general remark is that on the second item of your point three – items for discussion – it says before policy is available for comment flowchart to include proposed ICANN committee that monitors policy calendar to etc, etc. Among the many committees in ICANN Board which deal with that, let’s go through them very quickly, just as a reminder.
Public participation is working just now on the concept of the overall public comment or public input into policy and such things as the number of days during which an element must be available to the public or to the community for comment. And then there’s another committee, which is the structural improvements committee, which is much more I think into the overall organization.
So maybe you already have had this, but I’d like to ask has your working group, or working team, already had a contact with the people, at least the staff people from the structural improvements committee of the Board to make sure that we are not suggesting things which have already been excluded or which they think are not workable?
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: Okay, thank you Jean-Jacques. Well the answer is this has not been formally presented by the Work Team to either the public participation committee or the SIC. Actually what I see are Cheryl and both Seth have their hands up. Cheryl, I think, go ahead.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you Dev. Just to follow on from what Jean-Jacques said. Jean-Jacques, this is an issue for this Work Team that has happened in a couple of the other Work Teams as well, where the suggestions, recommendations and subset methods from our improvements review have been overtaken by ICANN developing itself. So going back to what Dev was saying just before where we probably would be overstepping our mark, apart from anything else, to go into this area. We do need to recognize in our reporting, which is now what this team is putting together, we need to recognize and reflect in our diagram those changes.
For example, the recommendation that ALAC be able to ask for an extension to 45 days – your own leadership in those teams, particularly the public participation, has ended up with that being now very much a standardized behavior within ICANN. And as I said earlier, we now see even the odd call for a 60-day comment period coming in. And also of course, the number of days prior to a meeting which is where I mentioned the usually 14 or 15 days before a meeting you may get a deadline that we would be looking at an extension to policy input knocking off before that particular point in time.
So we are aware of, and have looked at, but not reported to the staff support there. Of course, Heidi and Seth have worked very closely with them and I see Seth’s hand up as well. One of the other things, which we do need to recognize here and I believe we have discussed at least briefly in previous meetings, is that depending on what ICANN does with the recommendations from the ATRT, there are a number of iterative points that the ATRT review is suggesting as changes to the way that public input and calls for public input go that also may affect our work.
And to that end we should probably leave it as a sort of nebulous box of whatever ICANN is doing as its best practice rather than interfering and trying to suggest that an ICANN committee is formed.
I would prefer to see our record change that proposed ICANN committees to a proposed At-Large committee that monitors policy calendar to coordinate public comment period. So within our own part of ICANN rather than risk anyone thinking that we’re not recognizing and appreciating the work already done in this and what we trust will continue to be done as a result of the ATRT. Thank you.
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: Thank you, Cheryl. I see Seth and then I see Jean-Jacques. So Seth, go ahead.
Seth Greene: Thank you, Dev.
Jean-Jacques Subrenat: Excuse me, may I ask that you all speak a bit louder because apparently my connection is still not very good. I think I understood most of what Cheryl was saying, but if everyone could speak a bit louder, it’s not my age I think it’s just the telephone connection.
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: Okay, we thank you, Jean-Jacques. I think we will all try to do so. Go ahead, Seth.
Seth Greene: Thank you, Dev. I was just going to ask actually if I may go after Jean-Jacques follows up on Cheryl’s comment.
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: Okay, very well. Jean-Jacques?
Jean-Jacques Subrenat: Yes, thank you Cheryl for your explanations. I just wanted to suggest that perhaps ALAC staff be asked to make sure that their colleagues on the SIC and on the public participation committee, those support people are aware in resume of the work which we are doing on this working team just now. Just to make sure that there is a good synchronization between the two because from my experience on the Board I saw that sometimes a difference of as much as a month or two could find its way into the work of various committees and Work Teams and that entails, sometimes, unnecessary work. So it’s just a matter of synchronization. Thank you.
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: Okay. Thank you, Jean-Jacques. Alright Seth, please go ahead.
Seth Greene: Thank you, Dev. I was just going to remind the Work Team, if people don’t remember, what was said toward the very end of last meeting, I believe Dev, by you. And that was addressing the exact same concern that Cheryl and Jean-Jacques are talking about that perhaps an ICANN committee doesn’t really represent what it is but perhaps it would be best served as an ICANN staff cross-constituency, but an ICANN staff committee to do the administrative work at least in keeping everyone informed and coordinating various public comment periods.
Would that help? Does the Work Team think that would help it in not seeming as though the Work Team is overstepping its mandate with the recommendation or is that irrelevant?
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: Okay, well I believe that – okay, well Cheryl – well then perhaps my comments at the last meeting were misunderstood because the attempt I was trying to make here was, on the same diagram, was a committee would be made up of the ICANN staff really to look at the schedule. Not so much persons from the supporting organizations directly. So the person from ICANN staff would be the language services manager and the staff responsible, the ICANN staff directly responsible for maintaining the ACs and SOs.
So that was the intention of my comments last week. And again, it was, it kind of ended abruptly because we were running out of time. So maybe that was the misconception. Thanks Seth, for bringing that point back up. So that was the intention, not so much the cross-constituency working group made up of actual persons. So Cheryl, I think you want to respond to this. Go ahead.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thanks Dev, I was frantically typing but then I hit “return” in the middle and lost half my sentence. If that’s clear, because when we look at the words “ICANN committee” that is not what’s clear. If we change our words to suggest that, then I am very happy. But we have to recognize the work already done thus by ICANN and likely to be done as a response to ATRT recommendations.
And it is the fact that staff like Heidi, have no idea from other staff in other SOs or support roles when very important pieces of public comment are going to be called for that we find makes prior planning to prevent our problems impossible. So if that is what we mean by ICANN committee. I’m all for it.
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: Maybe we should say ICANN staff committee when – would that be a better phrasing?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Let’s see what ICANN staff can come up with for the right words. I think that’s an AI for Heidi and Seth to work with Rob and the others, and probably ICANN Legal. There are many parts, component parts of the ICANN community that believe committees are theirs quite rightly as a bottom up multi stakeholder model. So we might have to find another word then committee to describe the staff interaction and communication flow that we are proposing is essential.
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: Okay Cheryl. And I see Jean-Jacques agrees with that; and Rudi and Dave Kissoondoyal also agree. Excellent. Well then, I’ll really try to update and emphasis that there will be staff being on a committee, a staff committee to be looking at the policy schedules and update accordingly.
This was going to lead into what was my thinking to be another possible recommendation – the recommendation that as much as possible, the ICANN staff will try to synchronize – let me try to explain what I mean by synchronize – will try to schedule policy updates so that there’s not like one policy comes out and Monday, another policy comes out on Wednesday of the same week, you know, and try to release it, attempt as much as possible to release it on a predictable schedule.
And I use the example, for example, companies like Microsoft. Microsoft got criticized a lot for releasing patches so haphazardly in the past that administrators couldn’t keep track of it. So what Microsoft did was okay, the second Tuesday of every month we release all our patches and only if there’s a pressing, immediate concern that we will release out an immediate patch otherwise, but they were scheduled that way at least. So I was thinking of such as ICANN staff will help as much as possible to coordinate that type of approach. Okay and I’m seeing in the chat – oh, I’m seeing Jean-Jacques has his hand up. So sorry Jean-Jacques, please go ahead.
Jean-Jacques Subrenat: Thank you. I think in order for me to really understand what’s happening I’ll have to reformulate this for myself, maybe it’s useful for others as well. I think from my experience on the Board that the following would be useful: a two step approach – first step – staff relate with David Olive and his team because they’re very much on top of all the processes throughout all the Board committees; that’s the important thing and that’s why I think that the suggestion which was made on the chat that it be at the David Olive level is very useful.
And the second step if necessary would be to suggest to the Chair of the structural improvements committee that there be a contact between his committee and a member of this current working team, its Chair or its co-Chair for instance, in order to make sure that all these questions are in fact, of can be synchronized shortly. Thank you.
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: Thank you Jean-Jacques. I think those are very good suggestions and as noted in the chat as well. Does anybody else have any further comment on that; on Jean-Jacques suggestion? I think I see Rudi is agreeing and I believe Cheryl has also agreed with Jean-Jacques suggestion. Okay, excellent. So I think we have some clarity on the way forward regarding this policy publish schedule then. Thank you all very much.
Let’s now go back to the agenda. Okay, review of tasks under recommendation eight – except 8.3.1 – to determine any needed next steps. So now we are now going to be looking at the At-Large simplified improvements outline and see are there any outstanding tasks for us to really look at and to develop any content for. I am thinking – the spreadsheet is still loading for me – okay, does anybody have any initial comments or thoughts regarding the simplified outline?
I believe we have covered – and just looking at all the tasks under recommendation eight we just really have to now find tune these existing flowcharts and come up with the proper explanations to really put these recommendation sub-tasks in perspective.
With Recommendation 12 – I think we’ve also made good progress on this with the document currently in draft form ready to go to the consumer comment for their comments. And with regards to Recommendation 13, I believe we have also looked at Recommendation 13 especially as it comes to Recommendation 13.4, 13.5, 13.6 – ensuring that the GNSO, the ccNSO, the ASO PDP process incorporates measures that guarantee input from the ALAC as requested; that is requested, included, and considered integral to the process. We have also covered that in previous meetings. Anybody has any comments or thoughts or is there something that we are overlooked that we are not – Jean-Jacques, please go ahead.
Jean-Jacques Subrenat: Thank you, Dev Anand. Here again excuse me if I seem to be discovering the world. But I’m struck by the fact that many of these formulations in the recommendations ensure that PDP incorporates measures etc, etc – and I see that some of the answers or suggestions it is marked that that’s fine because there is someone from ALAC on this or that working team.
So my general remark on this, through my experience on the Board, is that having a member of one constituency working on another is of course very important. However, sometimes a process is not sufficiently insured by that measure alone. So I would suggest, but I’m sure you’ve already thought about that, I’d suggest that staff be asked to make sure that that is the case in process as well. Thank you.
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: Okay, thank you Jean-Jacques. I see that Rudi is agreeing with you. While he’s typing something, Cheryl, please go ahead.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you very much Dev. Just following on from what Jean-Jacques just said; an example of this, which is why I think we have not neglected it because coming out of for example, the GNSO improvements where the out for current public comment draft guidelines for PDP processes, and the new way that that particular support organization is running its public input, but also the input from different parts of the ICANN community with its open work group model, have changed the playing field considerably on this. But we do need to make sure at the staff coordination and at the committee to committee level that we are diligent here.
For example, in the work group in GNSO looking at the mechanisms by which the GNSO Council will accept the work of a work group and then what it does with the public comments that happens on that work groups output, which is a critical part of policy development. Considerable time has recently been taken where they were discussing how the GNSO Council would take input from the ACs.
Now this is not just ALAC, nut it was also SSAC or of course the government advisory committee, the GAC. So whist at least the GNSO is very aware of this, I think it’s something we need to be very careful much of the feedback from the GNSO constituencies on this discussion was “why should an ACs input have any different ranking or input priority over any other input priority in a public comment period.”
And this is an issue far bigger than an ALAC review outcome; this is an issue that needs to be grappled with ICANN-wide. I’m not suggesting we try and delve into that are now, but it is an output from recommendation 13 that the At-Large advisory committee, along with the other ACs, needs to be perhaps vigilant and take to a new space for discussion in the ICANN community. What the role of an advisory committee is in terms of input into policy development and public comments.
So your answer to your question, Dev, is I think we have probably done what we can do in this recommendation 13 step. But I don’t believe we can close these off. I think there are things that get to be get well beyond s just in ALAC and At-Large, but need to be dealt with at probably a accountability and transparency and AOC and Board and much bigger ICANN wide level. Thank you.
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: Thank you, Cheryl. Jean-Jacques I see your hand raised. Please go ahead.
Jean-Jacques Subrenat: Thank you, Dev Anand. Two points – the first is to be with Cheryl and to confirm what she is indicating that from the Board advantage it is quite clear that there is and there should be no ranking of advice from various parts of the ICANN community; or that is equivalent. So a question that begs is of course how to ensure that it is equivalent and treated with the same fair approach. That leads to my second point which is process again.
And here I would suggest that staff be asked to, in continuation with my previous suggestion, to make a list of the sticking points or outstanding points on which we think we’re all going in the right direction but we just want to make sure. And that list would have to be submitted to say David Olive to make sure that across the ICANN structures, the various committees of the Board that that is exactly where we stand. Otherwise I fear that they may not be exactly the same understanding of what this or that improvement means. Thank you.
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: Okay, Jean-Jacques. I think that might be a useful suggestion to try to the point for 13.6, 7, and 8 – anybody has any further thoughts or comments on that. Well I think I may have given Cheryl the microphone…very well. I think we will attempt to do that for the next meeting; to at least come up with these points for…
Jean-Jacques Subrenat: [interference]
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: Jean-Jacques, I’m afraid I didn’t quite catch that. Could you repeat that again? I believe it was Jean-Jacques who was speaking. I guess that we lose Jean-Jacques.
Gisella Gruber-White: Yeah, let me look into this, Dev.
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: I think we did lose him unfortunately. Although we are approaching the top of the hour, we’ll look back to the agenda.
Gisella Gruber-White: Sorry, Jean-Jacques dropped off.
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: Alright, that’s unfortunate. Well in case he comes back and wants to ask something else on the simplified outline, let me ask is there any other business? Does anybody have any thoughts, questions? Rudi, please go ahead.
Rudi Vansnick: Yes thank you, Dev. As we discussed today in the chat, Dev and myself about having maybe another kind of extension on the public comment period in the sense that the public comment period is always for the general public which means there are comments coming in till the last day and they can come from internet users as well as from anybody else, which means they are posting maybe comments that we have overseen as the At-Large community and we most probably could take them up as one of our comments too.
So my feeling was that maybe we should try to have some extended period just to be able to catch the comments that came up from some of the public comments from persons that are not part of the At-Large and of maybe could be good arguments that the At-Large could use. So that’s one of the ideas we have been discussing this afternoon and maybe it’s a point we have to raise for the next meeting.
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: Okay, thank you Rudi. Yes, we were discussing via chat earlier. And I’m seeing in the chat Jean-Jacques in snow back. Yes, that also happens to me to Cheryl, I had to mute mine because I didn’t realize that. So regarding this idea, what do people think about this?
The general idea would be that, as Rudi says, towards the end of a formal comment period ALAC should have access to the comments being submitted and perhaps with a review we can review those comments and then with that, and I hope I’m summarizing Rudi, please tell me if I’m getting it wrong. And with that have some possible request at the end of the comment period we wish to respond or add to our comments based on the comments received by everyone after the public comment period has closed. Am I correct, Rudi, or have I missed – okay, Cheryl…so sorry.
Rudi Vansnick: Yes, that’s correct Dev.
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: Cheryl, please go ahead.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay, I’m not going to bemoan the fact that obviously not everyone on this Work Team had read, understood, digested, and taken to their hearts as a mantra everything that the ATRT review people put forward as recommendations to the ICANN Board. However, if and when you do read them, Dev and Rudi, as I said earlier, a lot of what we are involved in, in this Work Team, is addressed in those recommendations.
And not this particular design, but a design that we all agreed on that we felt could work for ICANN as a change in how it deals with its public comments and input to public comments, was put forward as one of the recommendations to address this matter. So Rudi, in the ATRTs recommendation there is a recommendation to the mechanisms during a public comment phase of policy development that is quite a different change.
It is an opportunity in an extended time system, so you’ve already got boundaries of start and stop but within those known boundaries of start and stop there are several phases; including a phase which allows interaction between the commenter’s.
So this recommendation from the ATRT, which we sweated blood over getting right or as right as we could, is really in fact an attempt to address this exact issue. What we recognized and what we heard from many parts of the ICANN community is that if things come in at a minute to midnight before the public comment closes and they are of significance, and in some cases, require a rethink or an additional piece of reaction from other commenter’s, that is not facilitated in the current model.
So the model that the ATRT is proposing is to ICANN Board to consider implementing is specifically designed to address this need that Rudi is eluding to. So again, it is something that the bigger ICANN changes have taken over, which I think is a good thing, we just need to support it and be diligent and obviously work with the new model if and when it’s operational.
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: Okay, thank you Cheryl. So I guess one of the things that we could say is that we note this point in the ATRT recommendation and support it because it helps with our recommendation, whatever recommendation we are looking at. Okay, Cheryl you want to respond to that?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Sorry Dev, knowing that we’re just coming past the top of the hour I was concerned about typing and me losing half my sentences which I do when I’m using my laptop at this hour of the day. Can I suggest that what we do as a Work Team in what we’re putting together for the ALAC to integrate into its reporting is make clear reference by link or excerpt to those particular recommendations from the ATRT review, the inaugural review, and make it very clear in the support that we have for that way forward.
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: Okay, yep and that what I was going to say and I see Jean-Jacques and Rudi also agree with that suggestion. Thank you. So we are just crossing the top of the hour. I was just about to ask was there any other business; does anybody want to raise any points or issues. If not – I see Jean-Jacques I think…well it’s almost coming to the end Jean-Jacques so maybe it will come back. Sorry I’m on a network with all these multiple windows, it’s a little hard to switch back and forth with the agenda – sorry about that.
Last item on the agenda – confirmation of the next meeting. Although we’re coming to our last conference call before the San Francisco meeting, there’s a possibility of let’s try to have it on the same day. I think unfortunately Seth, you made a mistake it’s Thursday March 3rd 2011, not Wednesday.
Seth Greene: Yes, sorry about that.
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: Instead of having it at 1900 UTC we can have it at 2200 UTC because Hong has indicated that although early in the morning that is more doable for her to attend a conference call and we have not heard from Charles Mok as yet. Correct me if I’m wrong Seth, on that.
Seth Greene: Correct.
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: Okay, does anybody object? I’d be willing to have that meeting at 2200 UTC, is there anybody who wishes to object to that or think that should not be done? I see…okay…and Chris supports but he may be forced to join late, but he’s not opposed. So I think there have been no objections. Cheryl is suggesting 2230; let’s see what people are…
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Only if Chris is forced to join late. There is no unwritten law that says one has to meet at the top of an hour there is a half past an hour which can also work for some of us.
Chris Grundemann: Yes, I have a meeting at 21 that often runs over an hour, so 2230 would be fantastic for me but.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well Chris that works for me. It bites into the beginning of my working day but everything at ICANN seems to bite into my working day so what the hell.
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: Okay, well 2230 is actually, that’s true because I’ve never heard of any meeting, to be quite honest, it always seems to start at the top of the hour. So 2230 everyone? Anybody have any objections. Sold, Chris agrees, Cheryl agrees, Rudi agrees…
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: And Jean-Jacques will be with us in more than spirit that way.
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: That’s right. If he agrees to 22, I’m sure he’ll agree with 2230.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Oh Rudi you’re always up at midnight, don’t be silly we know that. You’ll get no sympathy from us at all, Rudi, we see when you’re online come on.
Rudi Vansnick: Well there have been times that I was not online during midnight but…
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Very rarely sir, very rarely.
Rudi Vansnick: I know a lot of us…
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: Very well then the meeting on March 3rd on Thursday will be at 2230. Alright excellent.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thanks, Dev.
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: Great. Well I think we can then close the meeting if there are no other questions. And thank you everybody for attending the call. I have to say I think this is probably our highest attendance for the Work Team D call, which is good. And I really appreciate all the comments and suggestions being made. So I would like to thank you all and see you in two weeks. Oh, I see Jean-Jacques wants to say something. Please, alright Jean-Jacques, please go ahead.
Jean-Jacques Subrenat: Rest assured Dev Anand that this is not through frustration of having been dropped from the call too often. I just wanted to ask you as Chair if there is anything during the various minutes I was dropped from the call where you thought you would request me to do anything specific.
Dev Anand Teelucksingh: No, I think no Jean-Jacques. That did not happen. Okay, and thank you for attending and thanks everyone for attending the call.
